Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3490.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up this amendment and offer it because the issue is making sure that those who work in the air transportation system are safe and secure. This is an important issue to the men and women who work at Sea-Tac and at other airports and are part of the delivery system of making sure air transportation is safe. They are an integral part of air transportation at every airport in the United States of America. This issue is something that has been considered in the House of Representatives as part of the transportation package as well, and it is part of what we think should be in this package in the Senate; that is, making sure that those who are part of the delivery system--ticket counter agents, agents who are aiding and assisting in getting passengers through the terminals and onto planes at the gate, assisting, as many of the challenging days go by, in delivering good air transportation service. What has happened is that these individuals have become victims--the victims of physical, violent abuse; that is, the public has taken to bodily harm against these individuals. So this amendment puts in similar safeguards that are in line with other transportation officials who are protected from this kind of physical abuse. I will have more to say on it, but I know my colleague is trying to get to the floor to speak as well. I will put into the Record examples of individuals who are ticketing agents, baggage agents, air transportation delivery system workers who have been hurt, and they deserve to have protection. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, yesterday President Obama nominated Federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left by the death of Associate Justice Scalia. The President has done his job. Now it is time for the Senate to do ours, to use advice and consent on this nominee, not to treat that as an option but as an obligation. It is my sincere hope that in the coming days and weeks, all of my Senate colleagues will join me in meeting the nominee and evaluating him based on his merits and on his record and that Republican objections about this individual be laid aside so that at least they can look at his qualifications, his judicial temperament, and his record. Chief Judge Garland has served the U.S. Court of Appeals since 1997. Let me stress that he has served on this important court for almost 20 years. He was previously at a law firm as a partner. He served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Finally, he served as a U.S. circuit judge earlier in his career. He is highly qualified as a nominee. America deserves to have a fully functioning court, and they deserve to have Senators who will do their job in reviewing this nominee. The Supreme Court cases that impact our fundamental rights and our operations of government--including the extent of property rights, privacy rights, the balance between civil liberty and national security, how to ensure equal protection under the law, and how to guarantee adequate and due process--are all things that deserve to have a full Supreme Court. We need a fully functioning Court to keep the balance that we have in our system--the checks and balances throughout our government. We cannot delay the consideration of this Supreme Court nominee. President Obama had an obligation to fill this vacancy on the Court. He did so by making this nomination. His duty does not end just because this is an election year. The Senate has a constitutional obligation now to provide the advice and consent to the President on this nominee. That is a job that we should all take very seriously. The American people deserve no less. In fact, the Supreme Court Justice who grew up in the State of Washington, William O. Douglas, was nominated and confirmed within 16 days. That is right--16 days. President Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Justice Douglas on March 20, 1939, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on a seat vacated by Justice Brandeis. Justice Douglas was confirmed by the Senate on April 4, 1939. He went on to serve on the Supreme Court for 36 years. So it can be done. While I am not saying it has to be done in the short amount of time that took--16 days--I do believe that we can get this nominee done in an efficient time. If you look at the record of most of the Supreme Court nominees, it has been, on average, 70 days. So we have plenty of time to make this consideration and make this decision. Yet Senate Republicans have manufactured their own artificial barrier to this debate of the Supreme Court nominee, basically saying that they don't believe we have to take up consideration of this issue. I am asking them: Please, take Judge Garland's phone calls. Please make your schedule available to meet with him. When we return, please schedule a hearing to consider his nomination. Then, do what the American people want us to do; that is, do our job and actually vote on consideration of Judge Garland. This is in the interest of the American people. I know that Senate Republicans want to say they want to wait. But we cannot wait a full year to get another nominee on the Court. The Senate has confirmed Supreme Court Justices in the final year of a Presidency more than a dozen times. During the last year of President Reagan's final term, Justice Kennedy was unanimously confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate. So the Republicans on the other side of the aisle, and many out there in the party, are saying they want to just allow a minority to drive the interests of the party and delay, delay, delay. Well, in my opinion, you are delaying justice. In fact, you are taking some of the gridlock that has existed in this building and are just moving it across the street to the Supreme Court. We cannot have delays and gridlock in our judicial system. We need to do our job and move through this process. Today, I am urging my colleagues to have a hearing, ask the tough questions, and finally hold a vote. Let's show the American people that we can do our job and that we can vote for or against this nominee. But you have to first meet with him, take his phone calls, and schedule a hearing. The Seattle Times recently wrote: ``The hyperpartisan milieu of Congress this election year must not thwart the framers' intent.'' The Olympian newspaper in our State wrote: The Republican Party's intransigence in Congress is legendary. But the new refusal to consider any appointment of a new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Obama is an outright abuse of power. So, if the other side continues to refuse a nominee until a new President is sworn in, it would mark the longest period in the history of the Senate, since the Civil War, to fill a vacancy. All the positions on the Supreme Court are essential. My constituents and people all across America expect the Senate to do its job, regardless of whether it is an election year or not. So I hope that, as our forefathers and Framers of our Constitution put together a government that works, those here in the Senate will take the phone calls of Judge Garland, take the meetings, schedule a hearing, and make sure that we vote on this nominee this year. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the board of trustees, president and CEO William Bell, and the team at Casey Family Programs as this organization celebrates its 50th anniversary this month. Casey Family Programs is the Nation's largest operating foundation focused on safely reducing the need for foster care and building Communities of Hope for children and families across America. Its goal is to influence long-lasting improvements in the safety and success of children, families, and the communities where they live. I am also proud to say that Casey Family Programs is based in Seattle, WA. March 15 is Casey's founders day. It is a time for the leaders to reflect on the foundation's creator, history, and its mission. Jim Casey, the founder of United Parcel Service, saw a critical need 50 years ago to ensure that our Nation's most vulnerable children had safe and stable families who would provide the opportunities and support needed to succeed in life. As the eldest child when his father passed away, Jim felt responsible for taking care of his mother and three siblings at the young age of 14. From a fledgling bicycle messenger service that he started in 1907, he steadily grew his company into the world's largest delivery and logistics company United Parcel Services, UPS, in 1919. Jim Casey said in 1947, ``. . . all of us, if we are to accomplish anything worthwhile, will do it largely through the help and cooperation of the people work with.'' This sentiment led Jim Casey to make a generous donation to create several foundations, including creation of Casey Family Programs in 1966 to provide direct services to children and families. Over the next 50 years, Casey Family Programs has grown to work with all 50 States and with Native American tribes. Although the foundation started with a specific focus on providing quality foster care, after considerable experience in direct services, Casey Family Programs recognized that it could have greater impact on families and children by working to support long-lasting improvements across entire child welfare systems and jurisdictions. Today the foundation provides strategic consultation, technical assistance, data analysis, and independent research and evaluation at no cost to all 50 States, as well as county and tribal child welfare jurisdictions across the Nation. From 2009 to 2015, Casey Family Programs will have invested $45 million in Washington. It has supported the work of the child welfare system, courts, tribes, policymakers, and other organizations to build communities of hope that safely reduce the need for foster care and support strong, lifelong families for all children. Washington State has two Casey field offices serving children and families in Seattle and Yakima. As a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, which has oversight over the Federal foster care funding programs, I value the education and research provided by Casey Family Programs. I was proud to support the Child and Family Services and Improvement and Innovation Act of 2011, which renewed the ability of up to 30 States to seek Federal waivers to explore better ways to service children and families in the child welfare system. Since passage of the law, Casey Family Programs has partnered with interested States to provide information, support, and research on ways to support States that sought waivers. Washington State is one of the waiver States, and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe in Washington is the only tribe in our country with a Federal waiver. Casey Family Programs is offering support, data, and regular meetings to help the waiver States implement their waivers and to provide information on the progress of the waivers. This information will be valuable in my oversight work on Federal child welfare policy. Jim Casey had a vision to help children and families, and the leadership of Casey Family Programs today is following his mission with a nationwide strategy to safely reduce the number of youth in foster care and to invest to build communities of hope. I want to congratulate the foundation for 50 years of service, and I look forward to learning from Casey's reports and leaders to promote further progress in Washington State and across the country.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to talk about an important national security measure that was passed in today's Customs bill that the conference report included and was voted out of the Senate. The Customs bill included an important provision that was authored by myself and Senator Collins in December of last year. Called S. 2430, the Travel Facilitation and Safety Act, it concerned how to improve biometric standards for visa waiver countries. Senator Collins and I focused on two things: increasing security standards for those visa waiver countries that we believe should use better biometrics and share that information and data, and improving security at our airports before people reach the United States, so we can know that we have done a thorough background check and evaluation. Senator Collins and I want to stop potential terrorists before they board a plane bound for the United States. I thank Secretary Jeh Johnson for working with us in December on S. 2430, and also for helping to get this included in the Customs bill. What we want to do is expand the customs and border security efforts that exist here in the United States and, if you will, expand our border controls to overseas airports. After the Paris attacks reignited a national discussion about what to do to improve U.S. security, we wanted to make sure that we do something specifically for those individuals traveling from 38 visa waiver countries. These are countries for whose citizens we do not require a full background check on individuals prior to coming to the United States. I know the Senator from Maine understands commerce. From the perspective of my home State, I know that we appreciate the free flow of people and commerce. It is something we depend on for our economy, but our economy also depends on the security of a travel system to catch bad actors before they reach the shores of the United States. Currently, manifests are checked by Homeland Security when passengers board a plane bound for the United States. Airline personnel perform some checks as well, but when no U.S. visa is required for travel to the United States, there is less scrutiny on those travelers before they reach U.S. shores, when they go through customs. This is something we sought to address. With an ever-changing security landscape around the world and the challenges that we face with ISIS, it is very important to continue to upgrade our security regime. Earlier this week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned that ISIS is likely to try to attack the United States this year, so we must continue to do everything we can to make our country safe. Two incidents highlight the need for expanding the border protection outside the United States of America. One EU citizen, Mehdi Nemouche, was radicalized through multiple stints in prison. After he was released, he was able to cover his tracks and fly from the EU to Syria. He was able to carry out an attack on a Jewish museum when he came back to Brussels, even though he was on an EU watch list, because he was not placed under ongoing surveillance. Nothing in his travel through airports helped him to be deterred. German officials notified the French of his appearance in Frankfurt after returning from several weeks in Southeast Asia, having since departed Syria. There was no record of his having traveled to Syria as an EU resident, so he was allowed to come back into Germany and travel through Europe's common border zone. It was from there he entered Belgium unchecked to carry out his attacks. In addition, one of the masterminds behind the Paris attacks traveled back and forth between Belgium and Syria multiple times, even though he was known to French intelligence. His mobile phone was traced to Greece because of a call he made to an extremist group in Belgium. We don't know exactly how he crossed into Greece from Syria, but we do know that there are holes in the system that terrorists can exploit. Senator Collins and I first started working on the issue of biometric standards and improving our security with visa waiver countries several years ago after the Ressam case, in which an individual from Algeria went to France and from France to Canada, making up a new identity every step of the way. He then made it to the U.S. border in Washington State at Port Angeles and made up a new identity as a Canadian citizen. Thank God a customs and border security agent was smart enough to realize something was amiss, and when they checked the trunk of the car, they found explosives that he had planned to use to blow up LAX. Today's legislation makes sure our physical border checks are moved to overseas airports so that U.S. law enforcement officials will be there on the ground to check for those people who are slipping through the European regime and may try to board an airplane bound for the United States of America. It is very important that we continue to strengthen our security regime, and I believe there is more that we can do. Our bill, S. 2430, would have allowed Customs and Border Protection to expand preclearance operations at targeted airports where we are concerned that the U.S. has a full partnership. If you have traveled outside of the United States of America and then return, you are very well aware of what happens to you at Customs--something like what is depicted in this photo where somebody is asking you for your passport information and background. Many of these operations have continued to be improved, including at Dulles airport. Through a pilot program, they now have the latest and greatest biometric technology that allows for enhanced fingerprint identification, facial recognition pictures, and a variety of things that are making our air travel more secure. We would like to do the same thing at U.S. preclearance operations abroad, and we will keep working to do just that. We would like to see customs and border operations, which is U.S. law enforcement on the ground, at partnership airports for places such as the United Kingdom, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, and Turkey, even though it is not a visa waiver country, because it is a transit point between Syria and Europe. The language in the bill today shows that Congress supports efforts to strengthen the security of our border checks by stretching them overseas to these operations. Again, I appreciate Secretary Johnson's committed insight to constantly improving our border security. He and his agency have been working hard to constantly upgrade our security. He engaged in a conversation with Senator Collins and me last December on this legislation, and he has continued to help us get this language into the Customs bill that we just voted on. I so appreciate Senator Collins' focus on this issue for many years as the head of the Homeland Security Committee. She has since turned that responsibility over to Senator Johnson, and he has also been focused on these issues. I just want to thank her for working with me on this legislation over several years. In 2010, we tried to improve the biometric standard for visa waiver countries and passed strong legislation out of the Senate. Unfortunately, it was watered down to a lesser standard. Yet it did start the efforts on more aggressive biometric travel infrastructure with our visa waiver partners. In our bill, S. 2430, we try to set up new biometric pilot projects that will work with our partners overseas and test out the best biometrics we can use. That provision was not included today, but it's something we will keep working on. We know ISIS has set up operations and is continuing to focus on these visa waiver countries, as well, like the U.K. and Belgium, and we know it is active in Turkey. Giving the best technologies and tools to our partner countries and working on counterintelligence is very important. Having trained U.S. law enforcement officials working with our partner airports is important for U.S. travelers, U.S. businesses, international commerce, and for travel and the airline industry in general. The fact that customs agents can conduct interviews, capture biometrics, and conduct behavioral analysis before travelers come to the United States of America helps improve the security of our system. Customs and Border Patrol has announced they want to increase the number of these preclearance-screened travelers by a considerable percent by 2024. This will help us protect the ever-growing traveling population--and know that we are doing a better job before people reach the shores of the United States. We know with a U.S. law enforcement presence overseas that we will increase security. Customs and Border Patrol turned away nearly 10,000 people seeking admission to the United States. That is 29 people per day. I am not saying all of these people were terrorists. Some had expired documents or otherwise inadmissible information, but the key fact is that preclearance worked. It worked in helping to prevent people that should not have been here from coming to the United States. Existing U.S. Customs and preclearance operations have stopped some suspected terrorists from reaching our country, and that is why we are so glad we passed this legislation and hope that it will be moved throughout the process to the President's desk and quickly signed. I also want to thank all of our colleagues and the managers of the legislation for including this in the bill. I thank all those who work at our U.S. border and U.S. Customs and Border Protection--like the person at the Washington State border who helped catch the Millennium Bomber, Ahmed Ressam, before he could harm Americans. I again thank the Senator from Maine for her constant work with me on this issue and for her focus on U.S. security. She and I know this job is not done. She and I would go even further in this effort, but we are at least glad we are expanding our border controls to these overseas airports, making U.S. travel safer and protecting people by not letting people come to the United States who pose a security threat. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed an amendment from Senators Collins and Klobuchar to promote biomass energy. I would like to take a couple minutes to express my support for biomass energy. Using biomass to create energy can be significantly better than using coal. I think it is great that people use wood to heat their homes, instead of heating with fossil fuels--like oil--particularly, when they do so with clean-burning, EPA-certified wood stoves or pellet stoves, particularly, when the stoves are produced by great companies--like QuadraFire, based in Colville, WA. Professors at University of Washington have emphasized the need for such an amendment to encourage the development of new emission-reducing energy facilities that use the types of biomass that will achieve our country's renewable energy and climate mitigation goals. Last October, EPA recognized that the use of some biomass can play an important role in controlling increases of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. EPA stated that the use of some types of biomass can potentially offer a wide range of environmental benefits, aside from the important carbon benefits. We have a wildfire problem in this country, and we need to encourage markets for the small trees, slash, and brush that we want to remove from our most at-risk forests. According to the EPA, the growth in U.S. forests offsets 13 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions annually. But the Global Climate Change Office at USDA has reported that increasing wildfires are transforming our forests from ``carbon sinks'' to ``carbon sources.'' We clearly need to treat some of our forests, and we should use the biomass that is generated. We also know we also need energy. But I think we need to continue to look at the ``highest and best use'' philosophy when talking about biomass. Clearly, trees filtering water and providing wildlife habitat is a best use. Clear-cutting our forests and burning whole trees for electricity is not a good use. But burning industrial or harvesting waste for energy is a good use. I am excited that EPA is currently developing a world leading accounting framework for biomass-generated emissions, and we are counting on them to finish this. I also want to say that cross-laminated timber is a particularly important ``good'' use of biomass. Building with wood uses less carbon than concrete, and CLT explicitly stores carbon, which in terms of our carbon balance is better than simply burning it. We agree that some biomass is clearly ``carbon neutral'' and some biomass is not ``carbon neutral.'' A study by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement showed that mills using biomass residuals avoid 181 million tons of CO2 emissions. That is equivalent to removing 35 million cars from the road. When we modified the amendment yesterday, we did so to make clear that the direction to the agencies was to establish biomass energy policies that are carbon neutral. Regrowing trees to replace those cut to produce energy is ``carbon neutral.'' But clear-cutting forests and burning them in power plants can lead to increases in atmospheric carbon levels for decades--especially when owners then sell their cut forests for housing developments, this is clearly not ``carbon neutral.'' The trees need to grow back and the forest to stay working in order to replace the carbon taken. That is why we specifically modified the amendment, prior to voting on it, to ensure we are encouraging forest owners to keep their lands in forests. Senator Markey is another leading voice in our carbon conversation, and I am looking forward to hearing his remarks.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, speaking in opposition to this amendment, it is basically like Keystone ``light.'' The proponents want to have no environmental review of natural gas gathering pipelines, and that is why we should oppose it. With two exceptions, the amendment would require the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture to approve the right to waive any gathering pipelines, unless they violate the Endangered Species Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. It would require the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture to approve the right to waive with pipelines. I consulted with the Department of the Interior, which had grave concerns about waiving those laws here. This amendment would significantly limit the Department's ability to gather relevant, scientific, technical information, and the public views about how to manage our public lands. So I encourage our colleagues to vote no.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we just cleared several amendments in a bipartisan fashion, working back and forth across the aisle, and I so appreciate our colleagues working so diligently on these tonight. If we want to keep making progress, obviously we have to keep communicating, but I thank everybody involved with getting these amendments done. To my colleague from Alaska, thanks for her diligence in focusing on these issues. Hopefully we will resolve these issues tomorrow. The cloture motion has been filed, so we need to keep moving forward so that we can resolve these issues by the end of this week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we are about to vote shortly on the Lee amendment. I rise to speak in opposition to that amendment and to remind my colleagues that this is a vote that we took around the same time last year. The Antiquities Act is one of our Nation's most successful conservation laws. It was signed into law in 1906 and used by President Theodore Roosevelt to designate Devils Tower in Wyoming as its first national monument. In the 110 years since its enactment, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16 different Presidents--8 Republicans, 8 Democrats--to designate more than 140 national monuments, including the San Juan Islands and the Hanford Reach in the State of Washington. Nearly half of our national parks, including national icons, such as the Grand Canyon and Olympic National Park, were designated as national monuments under the Antiquities Act. However, the amendment of the Senator from Utah would effectively end the President's ability to use the Antiquities Act to protect these threatened lands. His amendment requires that the national monument designation will expire after 3 years unless Congress enacts a law specifically approving the designation, and the State in which the monument would be located would also have to approve the designation. So this amendment requires State and Federal approval over a Federal land designation, which is unprecedented, giving away Federal land management responsibilities to States and a veto over these conservation efforts. I hope that, as my colleagues look at this first vote, they will oppose this amendment. As I said, I strongly do, and I hope our colleagues will look at their past record on this as well, because I am pretty sure we are all on record on our side in opposition to this amendment in the past. With that, I know we are probably ready to proceed to the vote.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this amendment would direct the Department of the Interior to create a new education program to educate landowners about conservation programs. It also requires that if the Interior Department contacts landowners about selling property or participating in a Federal conservation program, that the landowner be provided information about the Federal conservation programs available. I think this information is already publicly available, so I don't oppose establishing it as a conservation education program, and I am happy to move this amendment by a voice vote.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I did want to mention on amendment No. 3140 that I want to thank everybody who worked on that particular amendment tonight. I know tomorrow we are going to have a colloquy continuing the dialogue among all our colleagues who care about these issues as they relate to energy and biomass and making sure we are all continuing to work on this together. I want to point out that there will be a colloquy on that tomorrow. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CANTWELL

Mrs. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Franken's energy policy fellow, Michael Glotter, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Alaska for her focus on the hydropower bills we may be considering here, and I am thankful for the focus from all my colleagues on hydropower and ways we can continue to improve the efficiency of our resources and make sure we are continuing to diversify. I think we have outlined a good plan for today. Obviously we need the cooperation of our colleagues to keep moving forward on this legislation. We are going to have a couple of votes. I am so pleased my colleague from Minnesota is here to talk about one of our first votes, a federal energy efficiency resource standard. He has been a leader on this issue. Yesterday I outlined some of the great States in this Nation that have already adopted what are called energy efficiency resource standards, which have shown great success in helping to save energy and driving down demand, thereby saving money for both businesses and homeowners. I think it is something that will also receive a lot of enthusiasm as we move forward. I know that we have many ideas; that is what I like about this Energy bill--it was bipartisan coming out of the committee, and so far it has been bipartisan on the Senate floor in working out these issues. I hope my colleagues will understand that there will be a point where we do have to move off of this bill. Hopefully, with the cooperation of Members, we can make a great deal of progress today on additional votes besides the two that are pending, set more votes for later this evening, and also continue the process of getting some of these other issues resolved in the meantime. Again, I thank our colleagues for turning their focus to this. I thank my colleague for outlining where we have already been on the bill as it relates to the amendments we adopted last night and the continued progress. I think it comes down to the fact that as our economy changes, energy production needs to have the attention of our committee. We need to continue to be able to help empower this transformation that our economy is seeing on energy, and working together in a bipartisan fashion helps us to get there. It is good for our homeowners, it is good for businesses, and it is good for our economy. With that, I yield the floor and encourage our colleagues to support my colleague Senator Franken on his EERS amendment we will be voting on shortly.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I am hopeful that before we go to the caucus lunches, we will be able to move forward on a few more amendments and the scheduling of votes. Hopefully we will be able to do that in a few minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could just say, I so appreciate our colleagues working in such a bipartisan fashion to work through these eight amendments and set votes for these amendments tomorrow. We are making good progress on this legislation. I hope our colleagues will give attention to these matters so tomorrow we can move further on some more votes to clear up the remaining issues before us on this bill. I appreciate all our colleagues working together in earnest and the chair of the committee to make sure we have made this progress so far today. Thank you.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor as we are moving forward, as many of my colleagues know, on this energy package. I thank my colleagues who have already come to the floor today to talk about it, and I especially thank Senator Murkowski for helping us to move through so many different proposals by our colleagues. We were able to clear some of these amendments by voice votes, and, hopefully, we will be able to move forward over the next 24 hours on this bill by getting some votes locked in. One of the things we are going to talk about this week is energy efficiency, which is creating jobs and making our economy more competitive by holding down the cost of energy. Many of us know that for centuries the use of energy has been a very important factor in our economy. Last week I mentioned that the Northwest economy was built on a hydrosystem. Cheap hydropower has worked for us over and over again, as companies that use a lot of electricity have moved to the Northwest. We have stored everything from apples to terabytes of data because of the huge efficiencies that we were able to pull off with cheap hydropower. As my colleague from Alaska will say, energy costs are high in Alaska and she wants to make sure we are making it more affordable and enabling distributed generation, as she just mentioned earlier today. Ensuring that we have a microgrid to do that is a key component to how the state will successfully diversify their economy. As we debate this bill on the Senate floor, each of us is thinking about the regions of our country we represent and how to make sure we are dealing with energy successfully. One important thing I wanted to discuss is that in 2007, for the first time in our history, the United States actually delinked economic growth from energy use. Now, our economy is producing more in goods and services, yet it is using less in electricity. The chart behind me demonstrates this. This is a very important point because it shows that we can still grow our economy while consuming and using less energy. This is important if you are a homeowner and want to use the energy in your home more efficiently, while still having many apps and devices that require electricity but make your life easier. It is also important for businesses. As U.S. businesses compete in a global economy, they want to produce goods and services and do so in a cost-effective manner. So the more you can drive down energy costs without having to drive down consumption, the better. If we want to continue to compete in that global economy, we must continue to improve our energy productivity, and that is exactly what title I of the bill does. The Energy Policy Modernization Act will help ensure that the Nation is eliminating energy waste and making improvements in new technologies that will improve our competitiveness for the 21st century. Energy efficiency is the cheapest and most affordable energy resource because it is typically about one-third of the cost of new production; that is, by saving energy at home, by using what we already have more efficiently--and there are all sorts of smart ways to do this--you can actually spend only one-third of the cost of what it would take to get new production online. In the last 40 years, since the oil embargo, energy efficiency became an integral part of our energy policy. We have learned that efficiency is not like most other resources that are depleted and consumed. Instead, we found that as we keep making progress on energy efficiency, we have created new technologies. These have become the most cost- effective ways to cut waste and the most cost-effective ways to take the ``low-hanging fruit'' available in front of us and help businesses and homeowners alike. There are two examples of this that we, as the Federal Government, had a hand in: No. 1, automobiles and No. 2, lighting technology. Now both of these were in the previous 2007 Energy bill. Since then, average automobile fuel economy has improved dramatically, from 15 miles per gallon in 1978 to 28 miles per gallon in 2016, thanks to the CAFE standards in effect. That was something we pushed here that made our automobiles more efficient. With respect to lighting, the latest light-emitting diode, LED, technology is 6 to 7 times more efficient in energy consumption than traditional incandescent lights and can last at least 25 times longer. In 2012 alone, nearly 50,000 LEDs were installed in the United States, saving an estimated $675 million in annual electricity costs. What we are saying here is that we want to continue to move forward on energy efficiency. It is saving money for businesses and homeowners. We also want to continue the advancements of these energy-efficiency technologies and make sure that we are making the right investments. So I want to remind my colleagues that there are going to be several ways in which we are going to try to build on this progress. Energy efficiency must be a major part of our policies here, and I know many States across the country are also making investments in this. So tomorrow I expect us to have a vote on an amendment to establish a Federal energy efficiency resource standard, or an EERS. Since its establishment, the Department of Energy has implemented successful energy efficiency programs that develop new technologies and promote best practices within the major sectors of our energy economy. Yet many States have used their role to also establish energy efficiency standards. Behind me, you will see the number of States that have already developed these incentives for investments in energy efficiency by giving utilities an incentive to invest in low-cost, energy efficiency programs before investing in more expensive new energy production. You can see that many of these States across the United States have adopted such initiatives--25 States with energy efficiency resource standards. Why is that important? Well, once you start down the road of energy efficiency, you continue to make your grid more efficient, which is something California has done. California made a huge investment as a marketplace for energy efficiency, and now they continue to be on the cutting edge of energy efficiency. They have continued to grow as an economy yet use less energy. In fact, the 19 States with the greatest energy savings in the Nation all have energy efficiency resource standards. So, to me, this is an area of the bill that I think we would like to improve. States are the laboratories of democracy, and because 25 of them have demonstrated the benefits of this policy, I believe it is time the Federal Government should also establish a national energy efficiency resource standard. My colleague Senator Franken from Minnesota will be offering an amendment to do just that on this bill. The Federal Government could require States to do their part in reducing the waste of resources and increasing our Nation's energy productivity by establishing an energy efficiency resource standard that would promote investments in efficiency--everything from cost effectiveness in new buildings to production capacity. The proposed EERS would set a very modest, easily achievable energy savings target that electrical and natural gas utilities must meet as is already required in half of these States. The American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy estimates that implementing the Federal EERS would save $130 billion, or about $1,000 per household by 2040. The adoption of this EERS amendment would more than triple the energy efficiency savings benefits of the act before us today. A Federal EERS would not only save every American money by reducing their energy bill, but it would also strengthen our Nation's economic competitiveness by improving our energy's productivity and maintaining our leadership in the commercialization of these products. This is something I learned during my time in the private sector. Anytime you can make something that is of value to everybody more efficient, such as energy, you are on the winning path; that is, if you become the experts of constantly knowing how to make everything more efficient, whether you are talking about development in China, in Europe or in other parts of Asia, the fact that we are experts on energy efficiency by deploying this here in the United States gives us a winning hand on deploying it around the world. Anytime you can be more efficient, you are also being more cost effective and saving dollars. That is what we are pushing in this bill. It will move us forward on energy efficiency. As we have seen, energy efficiency--and I am sure Senator Franken will talk more about this tomorrow--is not only commonsense economics, but it also has the ability to focus on some of the cleaner sources of energy that we have been discussing too. The Federal Government has had a history of promoting energy efficiency, and the government itself, being the single largest energy user in the Nation, could benefit from this. We hope that when we look at the Federal Government, we will also be talking about energy efficiency products. One of the examples of how Congress directed the Federal Government to lead was by the enactment of section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This provision established a Federal leadership role in the development of high- efficiency, low-emission commercial buildings by requiring the Federal Government to phase out the use of fossil fuel energy in Federal buildings and major renovations by 2030. The U.S. Government, as the single largest occupant of Federal buildings in the Nation, should continue, I believe, to demonstrate its energy efficiency as well. I know in the Pacific Northwest we have the Bullitt Center, which is the greenest commercial building in the United States. We have a hospital in Issaquah that is one of the most energy efficient hospitals in the United States, and we have other businesses that are developing these buildings that are smart buildings that are driving down the costs. What does that mean? It means that businesses can invest money into R&D or into the manufacturing of goods or into the promotion of ideas instead of spending it on energy costs. For us in the Pacific Northwest, someone might ask: With the cheapest kilowatt rates in the Nation, why would everybody spend so much time on energy efficiency? We spend so much time on energy in the Northwest because we know it pays dividends. We know it gives us a competitive edge, and we know it continues to put us in the driver's seat with technology. Even though we have the cheapest kilowatt rates, we continue to make an investment. These buildings were designed by architects to show what is now technologically possible and to feature state-of-the-art ground-source heating and cooling, both photovoltaic and thermal solar energy collection, and computers that automatically adjust the building systems in order to keep them comfortable and efficient. Some buildings have an elevator that converts kinetic energy from braking into usable electricity. All of these things are about cutting-edge technology. The Bullitt Center and other buildings like it in the United States demonstrate that it is technologically feasible and cost effective to phase out the use of fossil fuel generated energy in new Federal buildings within the next 14 years, as required by current law. These are not radical policies. These laws, which were passed in 2007, are things that I know people here would like to strike and repeal. Let me mention another one we will likely hear about, which is the SAFE Act, offered by our colleagues from Georgia and Colorado. The Senators likely will offer this bill for sensible accounting to value energy. This bipartisan amendment was included in the Shaheen-Portman bill that would help homeowners account for the energy efficiency of their home during the mortgage and underwriting process. The average homeowner pays more than $2,000 annually for the energy in their home. After the mortgage, this is typically the second largest cost in buying and owning a home, but it is not accounted for in the mortgage underwriting process. Many of us have gone through this process of buying a home and getting a mortgage. So why can't a homeowner, on a voluntary basis, have their home audited for its energy efficiency characteristics and have that information accounted for in the mortgage underwriting process? This is what Senators Isakson, Bennet, Shaheen, and Portman have introduced in an amendment, and I think it will be one of the things we will hear about tomorrow and one of the potential votes we will be having. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that owners of more efficient homes are less likely to default on their mortgages. Adopting this amendment creates an incentive for homeowners to invest in energy efficiency improvement because those improvements will be accounted for in the underwriting process for their homes. Organizations as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the U.S. Green Building Council all support this amendment. So this is another idea that is not in the underlying bill that we will be discussing. Today we are here with many amendments that were added last week to this legislation. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and for continuing to move forward with my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, and myself in getting through the next couple of days of these policies. I know my colleagues want to continue to discuss this legislation, as I do, but we also know there is a limited time that we will be able to be on this legislation. So I urge our colleagues to bring any amendments to the floor tonight that they would like to have considered, if they haven't already filed them today. We need to continue to build on the successes of the last 40 years, continue to cut our energy waste, and de-link our economic growth from energy use so we can make sure we can continue to grow in the most cost-effective way, and continue to produce the jobs that these new renewables and energy efficiency opportunities are creating for us. I think this legislation will help give us another foothold toward a future economy that is cleaner, more efficient, and a better driver of U.S. competitiveness on an international global basis for the types of energy solutions that we think will help the world as well. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I will not object. I just want to thank my colleague from Alaska for her hard work in working on both sides of the aisle today on these amendments: the Barrasso amendment about energy reported out of the Indian Affairs Committee, the Baldwin amendment about water treatment, the Wyden amendment on U.S. geothermal, the Capito amendment on ethane storage facilities, the Daines amendment on hydro license issues, and the Hirono amendment on removing offensive language in the DOE Organization Act. Members have worked very hard throughout the day on these issues, and I just want to make this point, as my colleague and I try to finish working through the rest of this week and into next week to wrap up this bill, and thank all our colleagues for helping us on this. I will not object and am glad we got to this point.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I just want to point out to our colleagues that the chair has worked with us today to get a number of these pending amendments. I know she will probably express this, but it is our intent that hopefully we will have some votes on these other amendments either by voice or additional votes. So I hope colleagues who are interested in other amendments will come down. But I think this process gets us going on the voting and could be on some of these pending amendments as well. So I do not object.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I, too, rise this morning to talk about the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015. Yes, sometimes we can be cynical about this place and what we can get done; then, all of a sudden, we have a great opportunity to move something forward. The Senator from Alaska said it correctly. This is a milestone for the Senate. The fact that we are considering energy policy legislation on the Senate floor in a bipartisan bill, or any bill, for the first time since 2007 is a tremendous milestone. I thank her for her leadership and for her time and effort to put this legislation together in such a bipartisan fashion through the processes that we went through shown on that chart--hearings, listening sessions, discussions, amendments. I think it is appropriate to thank our staffs. Usually that is done at the end of a process, but when we have had a bill on the floor for the first time since 2007, we should herald them in advance. Angela Becker-Dippmann, Colin Hayes, and I know Karen also played a big role in this, so I thank them. But my colleague is a partner, as she said, in all things energy. It is interesting that the other Senator from Alaska is presiding at this moment. We have all been working together. The Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, and I participated in an Arctic summit just last week in Seattle, focusing on another policy for our Nation--the urgency of getting an icebreaker fleet for the United States of America and the other policies we need to do in the Arctic. So I have certainly enjoyed the many efforts that we in the Pacific Northwest region focus on. I think maybe that helped us a little bit in our outlook. It is not that we agree on everything. Certainly, we don't. But I think we know where we disagree, and we try not to let that get us held up. We try to find the commonality in what we are doing in moving forward on the modernization of our energy system and to make sure we are empowering the private sector to continue to move ahead on things by making sure that either the R&D investments or changes in policy get done on our watch. That is really what the Energy Policy Modernization Act is about. I thank the Chair for her leadership on that effort and for steering us to this process that we have before us today. As she said, it is not a bill so perfect that we are not going to hear from our colleagues on it. Since it is the first major piece of energy legislation in a long time that we hope goes all the way to the President's desk, it is a process I am sure many of our colleagues are going to want to see amendments on. We will work through them to the best of our abilities to hopefully improve the bill, but also not sink the bill with poison pill amendments that we know either will get it vetoed or will not get it across the finish line where we need to take this legislation. I am here this morning, along with the Chair of the committee, to thank our colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle for their leadership and input on this bill. Again, it was a process on which not everybody agreed, but the bill passed out of committee with well over a majority of votes in a bipartisan way. I think that signals it should have good support here on the Senate floor because we went through a very deliberative process in the committee, and that deliberative process means a lot of issues were aired, and we know where we can go and where we can't go on this legislation. Again, it doesn't mean we are not willing to consider a lot of debate; we are. It doesn't mean people aren't going to offer amendments that are going to be challenging; they are. But in the end, I think if we want to keep moving forward with empowering the kind of energy revolution that we are seeing, we need to keep up on our side of the ledger here in the Nation's Capital. Much has changed in the last 9 years since the 2007 act. Before that, we had a small bill in 2005, so we have seen some very dramatic changes in energy. Clean energy has certainly weathered the storm and is not just a pipe dream anymore. It is a key driver of our economy, and it is helping us reduce our carbon emissions. Wind power has more than quadrupled since the last bill. Solar photovoltaic installations are up nearly 15 times. The number of LED lights--I am glad the Senator from Alaska's husband is such a cheerleader--has grown more than 90 times in since that bill. The reason is, just as the Senator from Alaska said, this is all about consumers who want to be able to save money on their energy costs. Senators from Alaska get that, and Senators from Washington get that as well. We get it in a different way. They get it because they are constantly battling the highest energy costs in the Nation, and we get it because we are constantly reaping the benefits from some of the lowest energy costs in the Nation. We both have a great deal of concern here. We both want to protect the industries and the economic opportunities of our economy. We know that energy is the lifeblood of any economy. The U.S. solar industry employed more than 200,000 Americans in 2015, which was a 20 percent growth in the industry in the last year. To put it into perspective, it has grown nearly 12 times faster than the national employment rate during that same time period. So we need to continue this effort to make investments in the right research and development, the right technologies, in order to empower homeowners, ratepayers, and even businesses to save billions of dollars in energy costs. Why are we doing this bill? As I said, it is an important journey to update our antiquated energy policies when we want to modernize our infrastructure, and we want to maintain our global competitiveness. These are issues that are part of our energy debate today because we also want to reduce carbon pollution. As my colleague said, while this bill may not have everything we want to see from our side of the aisle in a carbon reduction plan, it certainly shows that we do want to see investments in clean energy. It doesn't matter whether you are a Republican or Democrat, the people of this country have said clearly that they want to see clean energy and they want us to help curb climate change. We need to listen to our constituents, and that is why we are trying to move past some of the issues of policy and move forward on things that will empower our citizens. The Senator from the State of Iowa, who is here, understands exactly what I am talking about because he, too--whether it is in wind or solar or biofuels--has seen the economic benefits of a changing energy landscape for our economy and wants to make sure that businesses and ratepayers are still empowered. We are here because we need to update and modernize our energy policies. That is what we did when this bill came out of committee with an 18-to-4 vote. And we need to build on the momentum of the technologies and how their deployment reflect new market realities. A very important aspect of our energy debate is the Secretary of Energy's completion of what was called the Quadrennial Energy Review. What are our Nation's energy challenges? It wasn't just an Energy Department discussion. It was the entire Federal Government weighing in on what are the energy needs of our Nation. It is done every 4 years. Basically, what Secretary Moniz said in that report is that we are at a crossroads, that the dynamic and changing nature of our domestic resource mix, expanded supplies of natural gas, and growth in distributed generation are creating opportunities and challenges. As the Secretary put it, ``the longevity and high capital costs of energy infrastructure mean that decisions made today will strongly influence our energy mix for the considerable part of the 21st century.'' What was he talking about? He was talking about the fact that we are at a crossroads and where we make investments will mean that we will either reap the benefits of making the right decisions or stymie our economy's economic growth by not making the right energy decisions. When we talk about energy infrastructure, I try to remind my colleagues we are talking about 2.6 million miles of pipeline, 640,000 miles of transmission lines, 414 natural gas storage facilities, 330 ports with petroleum and crude, more than 140,000 miles of railroad, and a diverse mix of energy projects and obviously an electricity grid that runs from coast to coast. The Quadrennial Energy Review talked about how we needed to modernize and upgrade that infrastructure and that the electricity grid was a key part of that. That is why you will see a lot in this bill about modernizing the electricity grid and why it is so important to our Nation--not only from an economic perspective of having affordable, cheap, renewable, clean energy but also in making sure we modernize the grid to help us with cyber security. Once again, a quote from the report: Dramatic changes in the U.S. energy landscape have significant implications for . . . infrastructure needs and choices. Well-informed and forward-looking decisions that lead to a more robust and resilient infrastructure can enable substantial new economic, consumer service, climate protection, and system reliability benefits. That is why you will see a significant focus in this bill on infrastructure, investing in technologies, cyber security, and making our grid more intelligent, efficient, and resilient--ways that we believe are going to help both businesses and consumers. The bill includes investments in energy storage, which helps integrate renewable energy. It has provisions for advanced grid technologies, which help make our electricity grid smarter and more intelligent, to move energy around more efficiently. It has cyber security research and development. I don't think there will be anybody in the Senate who will not support this more robust effort on cyber security given the challenges and the threats we face. It has a focus on new renewable technologies, which are great breakthroughs in helping to drive down costs. It has energy efficiency, which costs basically one-third to one-half less than new generation. This chart shows the question of whether you want to pay 4.6 cents a kilowatt for production or 12 cents a kilowatt for production. I know this. I would rather pay 4.6 cents. I would rather drive the costs down for the consumer as a result of energy efficiency or renewable energy, as opposed to making investments in what we know is going to be more expensive energy for the future. When it comes to R&D, we need to make sure we are making the right investments for the future and that we are sending the signals that capital markets will take as also a signal for continued investment. We need to make investments in our workforce because as the Quadrennial Energy Review shows, we will need 1.5 million new workers by 2030 in the energy sector. That is a huge number. I will say that we do not have the right tools in place to quickly train as many people as necessary. I am sure the Presiding Officer would attest to this just in the biofuels area. I am sure there are institutions in her State that are working hard to help describe, train, and educate those in the biofuels areas so we can have a robust infrastructure--the science, the R&D, the distribution, all of that. I know in our State we are working hard on this with our national laboratories and Washington State University on getting an advanced biofuels for the airplane sector because we want aviation to move forward on using those fuels and becoming even more efficient. There is advanced manufacturing here where it is about making sure our trucks have the same efficiency opportunities that we were able to help usher through in 2007 with higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Now we want to make sure we are investing in the same level of R&D for our advanced truck fleets in the United States so they can reap the same benefits as fuel-efficient automobiles. As I mentioned, the Quadrennial Energy Review laid all of this out, and that is why we took an effort with the committee on hearings that my colleague already outlined with more than 100 different energy bills and a variety of input from our colleagues. Yes, energy efficiency is front and center in this debate. In fact, I think there were 22 different energy efficiency bills from 30 different Senators as sponsors and cosponsors in the discussion. I think in 2007 we definitely talked about some smart grid demonstration projects and a few things, but nowhere was energy efficiency or the development of these policies--whether it is storage or distributed generation or protecting ratepayers--none of them were as front and center as they have been in this debate today. That is because energy efficiency not only makes sense in terms of the environmental benefits. People have seen that it makes sense for the economy, and it makes sense for our consumers. As I said, it drives down the cost of production and, obviously, when it integrates more sustainable resources, efficiency becomes a cheaper, better job creator and carries lower environmental costs than the alternative. Not only does it save consumers money, but it helps add to the flexibility of our grid and reduces carbon. I want to thank a few of our colleagues who have worked so hard on helping us put this legislation together. My colleague from Alaska mentioned the Shaheen-Portman piece of legislation, which is a key cornerstone of this bill when it comes to the energy efficiency area. It encompasses much of their work. They have obviously been stalwarts for years trying to get energy efficiency legislation moved through the Senate. Many of the provisions they have sought in the past are now in this bill. I commend them for their efforts. Residential and commercial buildings consume 40 percent of our U.S. energy. That is roughly $430 billion. When you talk about focusing on making our buildings more efficient and addressing that sector of our energy needs, there are some true savings. In the past, energy buildings and equipment standards have lowered the costs, and they expected to save roughly 3 billion metric tons of carbon emissions, which is the equivalent of carbon emissions of 42 million vehicles in a 15-year period. Just by focusing on our buildings and making them more energy efficient, we can have a tremendous impact. That is why I worked with my colleague Senator Murkowski in authorizing a section of this bill on smart buildings, and Senator Warren joined us. Smart buildings really will help us manage our energy loads better, particularly focusing on lighting, heating, cooling systems, and communications between buildings. We heard from the Department of Energy that smart buildings really could be a game changer for the efficiency discussions. I thank my colleague from Alaska for working with me on that provision. DOE has estimated that smart buildings can result in 30-percent additional efficiency in the way buildings are operated when they realize the full potential of these technologies. You can imagine that if you are an industry and you are trying to be competitive, what that is going to mean to have that level of efficiency. I know because with every sector of economy, they are constantly focusing on energy costs as a way to be competitive, particularly in an international market. I would say that one of the reasons we have so many server farms in the State of Washington--that is, storage data facilities--is because we have cheap electricity. When you start saying you are going to drive down the cost of electricity by such a significant margin, people are saying, ``I want to locate there.'' We want to make sure we are empowering free capital and investments to help us reduce carbon emissions by focusing on giving those powers to help focus on smart buildings. This isn't just a U.S. strategy. This is something the United States could be world leaders in. The International Energy Agency says that the energy efficiency market in China alone is expected to total more than $1.5 trillion between now and 2035. Think about it. They are building so rapidly, and yet they could be incented--that is, by the level of investment the United States is already making--to further their own efforts in smarter buildings, reducing carbon, building more efficiently. This is something where U.S. solutions could aid. I hope we will continue to focus on these kinds of innovations in the U.S. agreement with China. My colleague mentioned infrastructure as a key theme of this bill and mentioned some of those provisions. As I mentioned, utilities and the fact that, on average, the United States spends nearly 29 percent of its total expenditures on utilities such as electricity and natural gas--we want to continue to make improvements there. Data-driven intensive industries also, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, are part of the equation. We know as they continue to grow, we are going to want to make continued investments. In the Pacific Northwest, the Bullitt Center, which has been an acclaimed building--probably one of the greenest commercial buildings in the entire world--is a net-zero building and shows how well you can build a building that both consumes less electricity and can actually put electricity back onto the grid. We have many of these efforts in the Pacific Northwest where people have seen that smart building technology is expected to grow from $7 billion now to $17 billion in the next 4 years. It is a tremendous market opportunity for U.S. technology. I wish to mention a couple of other provisions that our colleagues have worked on in the bill and thank them for that. I wish to thank Senator Franken, Senator Heinrich, Senator King, and Senator Hirono for their efforts on energy storage that we have included in this legislation. It includes a program that is focused on driving down the cost curve of ways to help with storing energy, whether you are talking about battery technology or large-scale storage. I also thank Senator Wyden, Senator King, and Senator Hirono for their focus on advanced grid technologies--that includes demonstrating how multiple new technologies can be put into the electricity grid on a micro level. This is so important. My colleague from Alaska and my colleague from Hawaii both see the challenges of very different energy mixes than the rest of the United States and the challenges with transportation. Helping them on micro grid issues is critically important. As I mentioned, making distributed generation more reliable and more intelligent is a very key factor in this bill. Senator Wyden did incredible work on making sure we added new renewables in the area of marine hydrokinetic, geothermal, and biopower into this legislation. I thank him for that. I know my colleagues Senator King and Senator Sanders--and I know we will be joined by Senator Reid on the floor--are continuing to push the envelope on innovative ways to make sure distributed generation works for our citizens. This is something we didn't get as much in the bill as we wanted. We certainly put some new authority to make sure we are protecting consumers. But I think we will probably see that people will want to go further to make sure we are empowering everybody--from members of the Tea Party to the environmentalists who want to be in the solar business to those who put solar panels on their roof or anyone else who doesn't want to be gouged for the cost of doing that by the utility. They want the utility to make the investment, and they want to get a return for participating in reducing energy costs. I wish to thank all of those who worked on the cyber security section of the bill, which, as I mentioned, is very important. In 2003, more than half of the cyber incidents were directed at critical energy infrastructure. So the bill today basically says that the Department of Energy will be the lead role in coordinating our cyber response for the energy sector and that we will be working on the R&D in partnership with the private sector to make sure we have the right kind of information sharing to continue to make the kinds of investments for resiliency that we need to have for cyber security. I would like to mention a few more items. The advanced vehicle technologies program--Senators Stabenow, Peters, and Alexander all worked on this section of the legislation to try to, as I mentioned earlier, take the same fuel efficiency we have in automobiles and do the same thing for trucks. Companies in my State, such as PACCAR and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, are already trying to drive down the cost of truck transportation. Why? Because they see how much freight the United States is moving to overseas markets. We see that we have products we are going to sell to a developing overseas world, but we have to move them cost-effectively, so we put a lot of work into making our truck transportation efficient. I thank Senator Warren for her work on the Energy Information Administration provisions and Senator Manchin for his work on workforce issues--which I am sure we will continue to hear about when we come to the floor as it relates to our mine workers and a variety of other people keep transitioning to new job training to make sure we have the workforce for tomorrow. Lastly, I also want to mention my colleague Senator Heinrich, who has been very active on the workforce issues as well and making sure we have grants for work shortages and job training. I think my colleague from Alaska said it best--that this is not a bill which is about what everybody wanted but about what we could do and that is important to move forward now. It was built on a good, bipartisan process, and people were able to have input. We hope to follow the same process here on the floor. I am sure my colleagues on this side of the aisle will want to talk about ways in which we could go further. The American Energy Innovation Act we introduced last September has many of these provisions, such as having an energy efficiency resource standard at a national level and getting Senators Bennet and Isakson's SAVE Act, which makes sure consumers realize as homeowners the benefits of the investments they make in energy efficiency. I also mention my colleagues, Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator King of Maine, who have shared innovative ways to make sure consumers benefit from being in the solar business. I am sure we will hear from many more people on both sides of the aisle about their ideas and how they would like to improve this bill. As my colleague from Alaska said, it is important that we work together and not try to torpedo this bill but instead move forward on what has been a good, bipartisan process and continue to make investments for the future. One of the last issues I wish to mention, as an investment for the future, is the success of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am so proud that the Land and Water Conservation Fund was original legislation by my predecessor, Scoop Jackson, a Senator who served our State for many years. I think the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the most successful conservation programs in our country's history. It had been successful for more than 50 years before it was dismantled, but we were able to reestablish it in the omnibus for the next 3 years. Obviously our committee came to a bipartisan decision on this issue, and we believe it should be made permanent. It was such a successful program, it should at least receive the same attention it did for the first 50 years so we can continue on the same journey we have been making so we can be sure we have open space in the United States of America as we continue to grow. These are important outdoor spaces that have generated an incredible outdoor economy for the United States of America. It has generated economic revenue by providing the ability for people to go to the outdoors. I hope we will keep that as part of this legislation as it moves all the way through the U.S. Senate and the House and to the President's desk--permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. At this time, I am going to turn the floor back over to our colleagues so they can discuss this bill or other issues, but before I yield, I will reiterate that this legislation is about the modernization of energy--the lifeblood of our economy--and driving down the costs through investments on a new strategy for the future. It is not about holding on to the past as much as moving forward to the future, and it will enable our businesses, our ratepayers, and all of those whom we care about in that economy to continue to reap the benefits of next-generation energy technology--renewable technology-- that is cleaner, more efficient, and will keep our economy in the driver's seat for our own U.S. economy and be a game changer for us on an international basis so we can provide solutions that are cleaner, more efficient for sure, and will help us deal with the carbon issues around the globe. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor to any of my other colleagues who have come to the floor to join us. The Senator from New Jersey probably has the second most, if not the most, number of Puerto Ricans in his State.